Gujarat High Court High Court

Sushilkumar vs State on 7 July, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Sushilkumar vs State on 7 July, 2011
Author: Anant S. Dave,
  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/8306/2011	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 8306 of 2011
 

=============================================
 

SUSHILKUMAR
DEVCHANDRA JAISWAL - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
 

============================================= 
Appearance
: 
MR HASIT DILIP DAVE for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
MS MANISHA L SHAH ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1, 
=============================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 28/06/2011 

 

ORAL
ORDER

1. This
application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure in connection with first information report registered at
CR No.III-136 of 2011 with Godhra Taluka Police Station for the
offences punishable under Sections 65AE, 66B, 81 and 116B of the
Prohibition Act.

2. Learned
counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is falsely
implicated and is to be arrested in the above cases only upon
statement of one original accused and on the basis of such statement
the applicant cannot be arrested. It is further submitted that no
role is attributed to the applicant and in a similar circumstances
this Court as well as the Coordinate Bench exercised powers under
Section 438 of the Code in case of accused facing similar
allegations. It is further submitted that in view of the above, the
applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

3. Heard
Learned APP for the respondent – State.

4. On
perusal of the record of the case, it is found that the antecedent of
the applicant are not free from criminal offences. In the past also
the applicant was involved in similar offences. In the above
circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order
passed by the trial Court nor any case is made out to exercise powers
under Sectin 438 fot he Code.

5. The
application is rejected.

[ANANT
S. DAVE, J.]

//smita//

   

Top